How do they decide which fact checkers are correct?
Asked by
flo (
13313
)
September 27th, 2016
During September 26th 2016’s US election debate, Clinton said Trump not having been paying taxes. She didn’t specify during what period. He didn’t argue it. The fact checkers said he paid. Did they say during what period?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
11 Answers
If you source said “he paid” without specifics you can ignore it.
That was not “fact checked” because no one other than Trump and his accountants knows the answer. Anyone saying it was true or false is stating an opinion. If you read that, please provide a reference.
The fact checkers are non-partisan public interest groups and journalists. They usually back up their fact checking designation of truth, half truth, or lie, with documentation or reference.
The person you heard it from is not a valid source as a fact checker. Hillary was speculating as to whyTrump hasn’t released his returns. She was not stating a fact.
The person heard it from maybe one of those fact checkers I listed above via that mainstream media, maybe.
But the OP is: How do you know which fact checker/s are correct.
A legit fact checker will provide the sources of the information so others can verify it.
Essentially, they make it possible to check their own facts.
Also, Donald Trump is the source saying Trump does NOT always pay federal income tax .
From last night’s debate:
CLINTON: ”..he had to turn [tax records] over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.”
TRUMP: “That makes me smart.”
Fact checkers (or the idea of fact checking) are sort of like open source software.
Fact checkers make their research known and document it; in other words their work is open to the examination of others. Fact checkers, if proven wrong, update their conclusions. (again, parallel to open source software where the software is examined and vetted by many sets of eyes)
It’s the difference between making an assertion in a speech or debate (with no backing to make that assertion believable) and stating a provable, incontrovertible fact.
I find snopes.com to be pretty fair on all matters. I read rumors on politicians I hate and gone on there to find that the rumor is false and how it started or at least where it came from and if it came from a bias source. Sometimes there is no determination because they can’t find when or where the rumor began. So they will call it false. Which I agree with. If there is no evidence than it’s just a rumor not based on facts.
I don’t think Clinton meant he was evading paying taxes, but that he’s taking advantage of existing complex laws & accounting tricks to pay much less than she (is saying during the debate that she) thinks he should given his income. He admits and jokingly praises himself for being clever enough to use the system to his own advantage as much as possible.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
